Interventionism vs Isolationism

Posted by: Varrack

On terms of US foreign policy, which of these two views do you prefer?

  • Interventionism

  • Isolationism

47% 18 votes
53% 20 votes
  • Since we started our whole "Intervention" thing, the number and severity of global conflicts has gone down. Its not pretty, but it works.

  • NOT military intervention, though. We should still be heavily involved in world affairs through humanitarian aid, diplomacy, and building infrastructure and stable democracies. If goals for a more prosperous/safe world absolutely require military, then fine, we shouldn't be afraid to use our giant armed forces, but this shouldn't be the go-to- form of intervention.

  • Sometimes there are things worth fighting for.

  • Ok, depends we need to intervene in some cases. Its our responsibility as a super power. That being said, I don't think we need to send troops to every place where injustice happens.

  • It's the calm before the storm.

    Posted by: reece
  • We are not international policemen. Unless it's absolutely necessary, we should stay out of foreign conflicts.

  • Non interventionism, not isolationism. We should trade and engage in diplomacy, but not fight wars that aren't ours to fight.

  • We should stop wasting money on our bases around the world.

  • Assuming interventionism implies military intervention, I choose isolationist. However, I think diplomatic entanglements are just fine.

  • Saves money, and reduces anti-American sentiments. We should rely on the UN and regional actors to resolved international conflicts.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T19:54:37.0194314Z
This is too black and white. We need a good mix of both. We can't go around going to war with every country we dislike (as stargate insists.) Nor can we completely mind our own business and not ever help other countries.
Varrack says2015-08-25T19:58:34.8319290Z
I haven't met anyone who thinks we should go to war with literally every enemy of ours. Interventionism is simply the view that we should be involved in conflicts that include unnecessary oppression.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T20:00:21.7570706Z
Well stargate is as close as you can get with going to war with all our enemies.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T20:04:01.8369763Z
Military intervention isn't always bad though. It was good when we used military intervention to support South Korea against soviet backed North Korea.
Varrack says2015-08-25T20:06:25.5298931Z
Yeah, I think it is necessary to stop the spread of communism and authoritarianism which are oppressive ways of governing people and often results in tragedy, as we've learned throughout history.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T20:08:08.4358364Z
It's been a failure against Iran and Iraq though.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T20:08:30.3366920Z
We should only use military intervention if absolutely necessary.
58539672 says2015-08-25T20:11:26.5993174Z
@triangle.128k "It's been a failure against Iran and Iraq though." You can't win them all. We were bound to mess up somewhere.
biggest_pro_going says2015-08-25T20:18:34.8112769Z
Let countries fix there own problems and only intervene if things are getting very bad (when the US try to fix them things don't exactly get better)
TBR says2015-08-25T20:36:48.4495382Z
I would say, most of our attempts at intervention have failed. Sure, I can pick some success out of the rubble, but the overall impact is not positive. I don't, however, say there is no case ever, just that our bar is set way to low.
Varrack says2015-08-25T20:37:04.6001287Z
I'm doing a debate on interventionism right now so I'm interested in this topic. @triangle I don't think we failed against Iraq. We toppled Saddam and stabilized the region. It wasn't until we pulled out that things started to get chaotic (like ISIS, which formed after we left)
Varrack says2015-08-25T20:38:04.8789151Z
@TBR - can you list a few failures for me?
TBR says2015-08-25T20:38:15.0785594Z
@Varrack - We didn't stabilize sh1t.
TBR says2015-08-25T20:42:05.9176782Z
Sure. Even something like Kosovo with the best of intentions has been predominantly a failure. I find the clear successes harder to find than the failures.
TBR says2015-08-25T20:45:39.6530303Z
@Varrack - Here is a big part of my argument. Deployment is maligned by many who wish to rush to war. Its "soft" and a long list of unmanly things. Deployment, however, is a rational solution. War should be truly last resort - not just some bumper sticker. When all has failed, and their is a clear reason, well then, war it is. We have a long list of fighting just because we can, and the results suck.
TBR says2015-08-25T20:46:30.0413533Z
Sorry, that got messed up. Diplomacy
Volted says2015-08-25T20:51:46.6113674Z
America is a country that values democracy. Yet, there is little democracy in our interventions. The people in most of the countries we intervene in don't vote for our intervention. They have no say in the matter at all as far as I can see. What gives us the right? A famous line from American history is no taxation without representation. Yet, it's ok to shoot missiles at people without the people living in that part of the world having any representation in our decision making? This doesn't seem right to me. If you look up surveys of who people think is the biggest threat to world pieces a lot of places in the world say it’s us. This concerns me greatly.
William_Craven says2015-08-25T20:55:04.1270487Z
Thanks for setting up a spectrum of acceptable thought, everything is more nuanced than our minds will allow us to accept, but we're lazy and want to perpetuate the easy.
58539672 says2015-08-25T20:55:31.0231214Z
I think our interventionism has a greater impact in prevention of conflict than it does at actually solving the worlds problems. Nothing keeps our enemies quite like the threat of a US invasion if they so much as look at an ally the wrong way.
TBR says2015-08-25T20:58:43.7608566Z
@58539672 - In all our mucking about in the affairs of South American countries, what conflicts do you think we prevented?
biggest_pro_going says2015-08-25T20:59:16.4898664Z
Varrack - " can you list a few failures for me?"- Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the list goes on. Actually could u please point out ONE situation where US intervention has made a country better for the people living there?
stargate says2015-08-25T21:01:40.7751913Z
We can not stop now, the world depends on us for stability. If we leave it will make a power vacuum happen. On top of that weak nations needing our help could easily fall to dictators, or war, or terrorism. I will tell you something, after WW1 france wanted us to have our troops in france and a promise. A promise that if Germany starts its war machine aging we go to war. Yet we choose not to listen to them, we wanted to stay home. France and Britian not wanting to fight Germany by themselves, on top of wanting peace watch Germany. When the time for war comes it is to late for a quick victory and many died of a result of us unwilling to help.
biggest_pro_going says2015-08-25T21:08:09.5301698Z
If there was no America the world would be much more stable. Yes France may have wanted US troops inside it before ww2 but do u really think Iraq and Afghanistan want US troops inside them? So can u name 1 US intervention which benefited the country?
TBR says2015-08-25T21:09:35.5018344Z
@stargate - What is being shown above is, we are a disestablishing force too. Our history in South America is a great example of messing this stuff up. Like Augusto Pinochet? That was OUR GUY. Its not that our intentions are all bad, just that we need to start looking at other methods to achieve our goals (if these stated goals are even real to begin with).
TBR says2015-08-25T21:14:33.2844094Z
Our desire to see the solution to every problem as a military one is hampering actual progress. Our arrogance thinking that we know best, backed by the most insanely effective military ever make us bully's, not saviors.
Varrack says2015-08-25T21:15:03.3067357Z
@bpg - those were only "failures" (if that's how you look at them) because we *retreated*. We left Vietnam, and then the North took the South. We refuse to take action in Syria, even though Assad constantly defies Obama's red line, while thousands die from WMDs. We left Iraq, mistakenly, and then ISIS formed. Had we stayed, the outcome would have been better. But when antiwar protests begin, there's more pressure on Congress to take out our troops.
stargate says2015-08-25T21:19:01.4552854Z
In Iraq the dude was a dictator killing his own people. The government in afganstan supported terrorism. We could easily have just gone in and out. But we stay and try to rebuild the nations. We have done that ever sense WW2. Also my point was we need to be ready, and willing to fight for what we believe in. We may fail, we may lose a lot of men. But we can't just give up and quit. Right now with all of our defense pacts we are in charge for the defense of 1/4 of the world. By in change I mean all of our defense pacts, and if they get attacked or us we all help.
Varrack says2015-08-25T21:20:37.2112761Z
Take, for example, the 1930's. In the 30's, the U.S. was very isolationist and was hardly involved in foreign affairs. Yet in that same decade, Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, and Germany invaded Poland in 1939. While the U.S. took a vacation, authoritarian states rose up in conflict. Has America been involved earlier, we may have been able to prevent the Nazi war machine and millions of deaths. The whole "let's not do anything until someone does something to us" theory of policy doesn't work. If it weren't for Pearl Harbor, the U.S. may have never been involved to stop Germany from doing what it did. It needs to be in check like Stargate said, or else chaos will ensue.
Varrack says2015-08-25T21:27:51.0108634Z
@bpg - we built up Iraq from the bottom up, in the same way that we did to Japan and Germany after we beat them in WW2. America helped them a new constitution, embrace democracy, and create institutions to foster a free market economy. As for your question, yes, US intervention helped in stopping both world wars, it helped in Korea, it almost helped in Vietnam (before we suddenly left because we elected a Dem. Congress who defunded our stay there), it helped in the Middle East when we prevented Saddam from taking Kuwait and a ton of oil. It helped in Afghan and Iraq when we stabilized their regions.
TBR says2015-08-25T21:35:39.0540642Z
@Varrack - If there is a world war, we are sure to be in the thick of it. That, to me, is not a justification for the wars we have fought. What was truly to be gained in Vietnam? We have fought too much for too little.
Renegader says2015-08-25T21:41:42.1221734Z
Interventionist policies have been overall, the largest set of failures in the last couple decades
Varrack says2015-08-25T21:45:23.1330402Z
@TBR - I think of it as more of a prevention strategy. Have lots of military presence overseas, and destroy any conflicts before they grow huge. Had we done something like that, the world would been better off. We and several other Western countries invaded Vietnam to stop the spread of communism, which history has proven to be destructive
Varrack says2015-08-25T21:46:34.2396634Z
I do agree with you that diplomacy should be tried. But it often fails and is ineffective. "Peace talks" aren't taken seriously by everyone in the world.
stargate says2015-08-25T21:47:56.3917836Z
We need to fight sometimes even if we gain nothing. It is all about the bigger picture.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T21:49:39.8672469Z
So we should just go to war and get nothing out of it?
Volted says2015-08-25T21:52:41.6864124Z
@Varrack We occupied Iraq for almost a decade. Exactly how long do you think "victory" would take, and what would it look like when (or if) it arrived?
stargate says2015-08-25T21:55:21.4551814Z
Yes and no, most of the time I want something our of it. But when it is part of an bigger picture then maybe.
TBR says2015-08-25T22:15:33.0290466Z
@Varrack - How big is big? Was not a big enough mess? What "spread of communism" going to cost 1,300,000 + people otherwise? Just ridiculous. That war, like so many, was a failure.
TBR says2015-08-25T22:16:20.6258670Z
@stargate - Try to elaborate on the concept. I will refrain from jumping on this if you will give a bit more first.
stargate says2015-08-25T22:55:33.1661870Z
For example suddenly a civil war in Saudi Arabia. We sit back a watch, then there is a dictator that rises to power expanding the military and killing civilians. They began to try to unite thr middle use by useing force. We attack egypt due to them having a dictator, so to spread freedom. We might not get anything other then stop Saudi Arabia. This is just an example this will most likely never happen, and has never happened.
TBR says2015-08-25T23:01:51.3354834Z
Trilateral war? That is very convoluted. I am not sure the people of Egypt would be happy that we used them as a pawn (That is the ones that are alive)
TBR says2015-08-25T23:02:58.1831974Z
@stargate - Let me ask a very basic question. What makes you sure that a Republic is better than a Dictatorship?
Haroush says2015-08-25T23:21:10.8372452Z
I'm in between.
Haroush says2015-08-25T23:22:42.5034328Z
I am more so an isolationist and believe only our closest allies deserves our help.
Tha_Great_One_23 says2015-08-26T00:43:23.9476675Z
Isolationism= I don't care Sucks to be you, but sometimes you need to care. Stop being such a coward.
stargate says2015-08-26T00:46:17.7197558Z
@TBR It is not always better. But usually there is a better human rights record. Plus people usually have more freedoms, and rights.
stargate says2015-08-26T00:46:52.2122402Z
@TBR True, but it will never happen it was just an example.
tajshar2k says2015-08-26T00:51:45.8028845Z
Stargate, did you get the quote " Sometimes there are things worth fighting for." from Lord of the Rings?
stargate says2015-08-26T00:53:18.8574810Z
@tajshar2k Nope never read the books. It is in them? If so who said it?
tajshar2k says2015-08-26T00:54:22.6269890Z
Sam tells Frodo that. Don't remember where in the books, but its in the 2nd movie. It's like his emotional speech to fight evil.
stargate says2015-08-26T00:56:14.2166502Z
Um, well thats cool. Didn't know that it was in it.
tajshar2k says2015-08-26T00:57:15.0426098Z
I have to admit, that speech makes me wanna kick ISIS's butt!
stargate says2015-08-26T00:58:33.4814210Z
Yeah time to wipe ISIS out.
TBR says2015-08-26T01:02:14.4298862Z
At some point you guys are going to have to accept - you can "wipe out ISIS" with bombs, but not the problems that give rise to the groups to start with.
tajshar2k says2015-08-26T01:03:48.2194910Z
Stargate, Lord of the Rings is one thing, reality another thing. We can't afford to fight ISIS right now. Please, think about our own problems, debt, gun violence, inequality, etc... We better fix these first before we deal with ISIS. Remember, ISIS is only a domestic threat unlike Al-Qaeda. So right now we should just focus on National security. Let the other country in the Levant take care of them "for now" Don't worry, the need for your Texas cowboy spirit has not been forgotten. Your moment will come, but its not right now. Lets just focus on our own problems for now.
triangle.128k says2015-08-26T01:04:53.1555316Z
"ISIS is only a domestic threat" I hope they remain that way, it could get out of hand, they're recruiting from all over the world.
stargate says2015-08-26T01:05:05.3790694Z
I know, but still....There is no quick and easy solution to gun violence. Dept yeah but......
stargate says2015-08-26T01:05:57.8900158Z
I still want to wipe ISIS out, but maybe....
TBR says2015-08-26T01:06:33.7397350Z
@stargate - That you think there is a "quick" solution to the issues of the middle-east are a problem./
stargate says2015-08-26T01:06:41.7895414Z
We might want to wipe them out before they grow stronger.
stargate says2015-08-26T01:07:31.6328194Z
@TBR Nope only long term, I can tell you the long term plan though.
triangle.128k says2015-08-26T01:07:55.7859023Z
If we are to do anything about ISIS, we should just aid Iran and Turkey or whatever to fight against ISIS. It's best we stay out of it.
tajshar2k says2015-08-26T01:09:17.7467402Z
Exactly what triangle said, Atleast for now, until we sort our own problems.
stargate says2015-08-26T01:09:46.3594111Z
We need to be willing to use force, but to be honest I worry more about Russia and chinia then an ISIS attack.
TBR says2015-08-26T01:10:45.0933798Z
@stargate - Lay it out brother. Think there is a bowl of bugs at the end?
stargate says2015-08-26T01:10:56.6222615Z
It could easily turn into a problem into a problem for us.
Tha_Great_One_23 says2015-08-26T01:11:17.8227974Z
"Texas Cowboy Spirit" LMAO
Varrack says2015-08-26T01:13:17.4156854Z
Or we could join ISIS.
tajshar2k says2015-08-26T01:13:51.8425847Z
Yes! Death to the Capitalist Pigs!
triangle.128k says2015-08-26T01:15:33.8360385Z
@stargate Russia and China aren't going to do anything, what do you have against them?
triangle.128k says2015-08-26T01:16:26.8669430Z
@Varrack Yes, we must fight in the cause of Allah and establish an islamic state! Capitalism and Secularism can go to hell!
tajshar2k says2015-08-26T01:17:34.2376103Z
Triangle.128k, militarily no but America depends too much on the Chinese economy. Its something to be concerned about. IDK about Russia though. Russia is pretty useless now. Its former Soviet glory days are a thing of the past.
triangle.128k says2015-08-26T01:19:07.0986514Z
@Tajshar2k Which is why USA and China need better relations with each other,
stargate says2015-08-26T01:19:17.8222743Z
Well okay, and maybe. Okay first request Turkey and the rest of our allies to help us. Began an attack on ISIS, Once we start that we should send cia agents to check on every government in the middle east. These agents jobs would be to document all froms of there political climate, there threat level, human rights record, freedoms, terrorism levels. Once we start attack ISIS we also ask nations if they need our help in wiping our ISIS cells. This will alow us to gain a foothold in these nations, and allow us to grow in power in that region. After we wipe our ISIS in syria and Iraq we start to rebuild the nations. During that we set up a republic, make a temporary construction for them, fix the education system. Now once the cia agents do all the gathering of info I would demand any nation that has a bad human rights record, and high level of corruption, and an unstable government. I would move in and try to set up a better government stay there for around two years three years max while we rebuild them. Rebuilding these nations will hopefully allow them to better understand us, and we them. This is a quick plan, and by no means is perfect.
triangle.128k says2015-08-26T01:19:53.1510322Z
Russia's just a threat to Ukraine or something at this point. I don't know what's with Russia and Ukraine, considering the genocide against them in the USSR.
stargate says2015-08-26T01:23:02.7894946Z
Well for one there new levels of agression. Two russia saying it will use nukes if we continue to involve ourselves in there business. Three China and the south chinas sea. ISIS can only do so much right now, Russia and China have a bigger military then ISIS, more money then ISIS. They simple are a bogger threat.
TBR says2015-08-26T01:24:43.5523623Z
If your primary concern is human rights, and corruption in government, you got the wrong continent stargate. Africa is kicking the ME a$$ on these indexes
Renegader says2015-08-26T02:46:11.0792924Z
We must not keep pretending that we are some kind of world police with infallible motives. More so than not, interventionism causes terrible situations to escalate to a level that never would have been reached. Stop bullying other nations, stop militarizing domestic police units, and replace "defense" spending with actual defenses. I love this false dilemma that we have to be isolationists if we don't want to stick our cauks into every little thing. You can still defend national interests and be diplomatic without immediately jumping to a military solution.
Varrack says2015-08-26T02:51:39.6173984Z
@Renegader - there is no false dichotomy here. The question was asking "which view do you prefer?" I know that not everyone identifies with either view, but I'm just wondering which view is more appealing to people.
58539672 says2015-08-26T03:31:01.9039676Z
@TBR well, WW3 for instance. The Cold War has passed and people have forgotten what the US has done to protect not just Europe, but western society itself from the USSR. All the conflicts that the US has taken part of still don't even come close to how many people killed in WW2. If we had to destabilize several areas of the world to stop the Soviet Union while preventing another World War, then so be it.
Mirza says2015-08-26T06:15:06.9382327Z
Oh... My.... God... Look at those poll results. Damn.
stargate says2015-08-26T10:27:57.1306769Z
Well and fighting terrorism, yeah but I do not think the people would want us to fight a war in aficia. Though I hear somlia is pretty bad.......
stargate says2015-08-26T10:29:00.7634848Z
Sometimes sacrifices for the greater good are needed to protect the world.
stargate says2015-08-26T10:29:55.2858343Z
@TBR true, but we need to fix one part of the world at an time.
TBR says2015-08-26T14:27:21.0772652Z
@stargate - So how about fixing our own country? If we are willing to let the Congo wait, how about letting the ME wait? Why not?
TBR says2015-08-26T14:50:51.0282199Z
@stargate - if you insist in "doing the middle east first" why aren't Pakistan and Saudi Arabia top of the "invade" list? They both are in the top ten of human rights violators. No, the reasons we right in the ME have a number of overlapping interests. This "Nice guy" ideal is very low on the list of actual reasons, but high on the list of selling points. I am sure you have the best of intentions, and hate to see you become jaded to the suffering of people, but this is not the way to go about helping people. Let me ask you another question. There are ~5 million people displaced from Syria. A large number are going to Greece, a country with no ability to help. We can help. How about if we opened our doors the the 5 million? That is caring. Would you back that plan? How about if the numbers swelled to 20 million?
biggest_pro_going says2015-08-26T15:13:08.9089894Z
Varrack: Iraq will blow us up with WMDs? If you think Iraq has or did have WMDs then i am surprised how you can use a computer.
Varrack says2015-08-26T18:38:29.7425752Z
@bpg - yes they did. They were used by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's.
stargate says2015-08-26T20:42:49.0461594Z
@TBR They are on my attack list.....It is just I would need proof. Also I would need to prepare for the attack.
stargate says2015-08-26T20:50:02.0976630Z
I would do this first Declare war on ISIS and the syrian government. I would send in ground troops and hopefully other nations would help. I would also send cia agents to every middle eastern nation, and somr north afician nations to gather info about the governments politics, troop locations, current political situation, terrorism levels, over all importance to the usa, and the culture, I would also thinka bout any blow back effects. I would not send troops into nprth aficia unless they want our help in the operation to wipe out terror. But if they fail to ment a certain set of guild lines. Then I will be open to the option of war. Once we wipe out ISIS in syria and Iraq we rebuild the government. We rebuild there nation, help them basically. Any nation that is highly corrupt, with bad human rights records are nations I am open to attacking. But I would rather you force as my last resort.
stargate says2015-08-26T20:51:23.0472858Z
I am sorry but no, I would have nothing against them. But all they need to do is go though the proper methods of becoming a usa civilian.
stargate says2015-08-26T20:54:44.9437800Z
I want to attack saudi arabia, but right now we can't. We simply can't, we need the oil. Now I am open to attacking Syria ( ISIS, government) Iraq ( ISIS) Yemen (ISIS, maybe government or rebles would need more info) Saudia arabia ( government) Somlia ( Terrorist cells, maybe reble groups, maybe government need more info) that is just a quick list. As much as I think we need to go to war, we can't fight everyone.
TBR says2015-08-26T21:01:31.4144472Z
@stargate - So all this humanitarianism at a distance. Killing them is fine, allowing them in our borders, unacceptable. The "proper methods" are simply us saying "OK, come here". The entire thing is transparent. 1) Killing to peace is not a successful strategy. 2) You are unconcern about all country's where dictators and human right abuses occur. 3) Unwilling to open our own home to those you profess to care for so much more than I. 4) You obsess on the nations of the M.E. || To be frank, just saying you want to wipe-out all terrorists and what look like terrorists, and all that might become terrorists in the middle east to insure my comfort would be more honest.
stargate says2015-08-26T21:17:48.4542486Z
@TBR Look I am fine about the civilians. It is just we can't allow all of them in, they need to pass the a set of exams. If they pass then they can come into the USA and get our citizenship. Okay well why do you think I would want to invade most of these nations. It is not just terrorism, if it was just terrorism then I would put also there government.
stargate says2015-08-26T21:19:23.1936559Z
I want to rebuild the middle east, I want them to stop terrorism have a good human rights record. I want them to have the same freedoms that most first world nations have, I want them to have a good education where they can learn about the world. Basically I want them to prosper.
stargate says2015-08-26T21:22:17.4481717Z
I do not just care about terrorism. After all I think our biggest threat is not terrorism. I want to attack nations where one the government is corrupt, two areas with high levels of terrorism, three poor human rights records. Four nations that steal other nations lands.
stargate says2015-08-26T21:22:31.2840616Z
It is not just about terrorism.
TBR says2015-08-26T21:39:11.4688730Z
" It is just we can't allow all of them in, they need to pass the a set of exams. " - Why? If the goal is humanitarian, why? You want to destroy their country - to help them - but sure don't want them near you. As Donnie Brasco would say "forgeat about-it"
stargate says2015-08-26T21:46:32.0106860Z
I am fine with them being near me. It is just they need to pass the test first. I am not for them beong allowee to come here without talking it. Those who pass it can come i to the usa and get citizenship, those who fail can't. So please stop saying stuff I never said. Now those countries need to have wither terrorism removed. Or the corrupt government/army removed. That can only happen by war. Once we win we rebuild the nation. How is that bad, I am fine with them. I live near people that are from other nations. I am not some white supremacist, I am for all races being treated equal.
stargate says2015-08-26T21:48:43.8053418Z
Why? Because that is the way it has been well sense forever. If they do not and still try to enter. Then they are illegal immigrants and should be forced out due to that. You need to pass the exam to enter the usa and become a us citizen. Also I am pretty sure europe is doing it worse then we are. We never use tear gas.
Haroush says2015-08-26T23:44:09.3259579Z
Stargate is a Chinese spy ;)
stargate says2015-08-26T23:56:32.3706817Z
Lol
TBR says2015-08-27T00:04:24.5035155Z
@stargate - " am fine with them being near me. It is just they need to pass the test first. I am not for them beong allowee to come here without talking it. Those who pass it can come i to the usa and get citizenship, those who fail can't. So please stop saying stuff I never said. Now those countries need to have wither terrorism removed. Or the corrupt government/army removed. That can only happen by war. Once we win we rebuild the nation. How is that bad, I am fine with them. I live near people that are from other nations. I am not some white supremacist, I am for all races being treated equal. Why? Because that is the way it has been well sense forever. If they do not and still try to enter. Then they are illegal immigrants and should be forced out due to that. You need to pass the exam to enter the usa and become a us citizen. Also I am pretty sure europe is doing it worse then we are. We never use tear gas. - what test are you talking about? Really, just what test are we talking here? Not a citizenship test, thats not what you are talking about are you?
TBR says2015-08-27T00:11:17.9453163Z
@stargate - You are NOT an illegal alien just because you aren't a citizen. To make it legal for refugees from the M.E. Into the country, all we would have to do is allow more visas. Again, I ask, displacing and killing civilians. No problem, not our issue? So, as we see now, our folly in invading is helping unsettle a large area, and the frightened people leaning on Greece, Lebanon etc. No problem, not MY issue. Do you ever stop to wonder why people are angry with us? Really?
TBR says2015-08-27T00:19:06.9741650Z
Let me keep on this track. Say we go along with your plan. We know there will be high civilian casualties. We are offering NO plan for them, NO sanctuary. How on earth does that not make us WAY worse abusers of human rights than the dictators they suffer under now? "Stand still, and hope you don't get killed, OK. When were finished, we promise we will build some nice new schools for whomever is left standing. Trust us, you will LOVE us then."
stargate says2015-08-27T01:06:24.3564939Z
An a illegal immigrant is when they enter the nation illegally. They stay here without talking the citizenship test. You where saying why don't more of them come here? One it is far away, two the money involved in getting here, and then to become an usa citizen you need to pass the citizenship exam.
stargate says2015-08-27T01:12:35.3340059Z
Well you seem to think I say bomb them out. I do not support the mass spread bombing across the nations. Because this kills civilians, and dodn't always hit the military or the terroist cell. I say if we do attack only bomb factorys making tanks, weapons ex, military compounds, and areas with know military/ terrorism activity. We would also need to send ground troops. I would want to size control in an year to two years. Then spend two years helping them rebuild there government, economy, ex. I am not saying it is moraly right, I will not lye and say it will only take a few years, I will not lye and tell you civilians, and troops will die. I can not see the future so I do not know how long these wars will last, or if they will fix the middle easts problems. But I strongly belive this could work, if we do it right.
stargate says2015-08-27T01:13:41.5733043Z
I kean if they want to stay and live here when I say come here.
stargate says2015-08-27T01:16:05.3460775Z
I do not believe in killing the civilians. I just want there to be a change in the government. An change which is for the better. I want them to have a good strong government, good human rights records, and no terrorism. But will that happen without our help? Who knows, it might and it might not.
stargate says2015-08-27T01:24:47.7571855Z
What do you think we should do? I am open to ideas.
TBR says2015-08-28T02:27:13.9261559Z
@stargate - "An a illegal immigrant is when they enter the nation illegally." And all we have to do to make it legal is say it is legal. We can offer as many visas as we wish. || "They stay here without talking the citizenship test." - Just like all LEGAL foreigners living in the US on a visa/workpermit/etc. || "You where saying why don't more of them come here? One it is far away, two the money involved in getting here," - Are you kidding? We are sending ships, planes, bombs. The costs and logistics are incredible and cost a FORTUNE! Getting them here, and paying their way FOREVER is less expensive than a war. || "and then to become an usa citizen you need to pass the citizenship exam." - If they choose to become citizens, they will take the test.
TBR says2015-08-28T02:28:47.7295572Z
Stargate - "What do you think we should do? I am open to ideas." - NOTHING. Well, not really, there is a lot we can do to help, but the general plan is leave them the he11 alone.
stargate says2015-08-30T01:51:48.1860099Z
True, but I think ew should try to make the world a better place by any mean. I don not care if it is though war, or though trading and giving them aid. But I know one thing we need to do something, we can not just hope all the world problems get solved without us willing to fight to achieve that gaol. There are more terrorist then there has ever been, more nations are falling into chaos, plus Russia held;ping Ukraine rebels that just happen to have Russian weapons. China with the south chines sea building fake islands, and treating its neighbors. Like it or not we are now the world police, we have assumed that world for an long time. If we stop trying to make a better world, if we give up now it will leave a power vacuum. That someone will try to fill, I do not know who but someone will. That someone might be a lot worse then the usa. Right now we are in charge of defending 1/4 of the world population, this is due to all of our defense pacts. I am not saying just coming into these nations and attacking them will work. But it is the quickest solution to this. We need to be ready for what might, and what can, and what will happen. We need to be ready for the worse case scenario.
TBR says2015-08-30T01:59:26.7493897Z
@stargate - "True, but I think ew should try to make the world a better place by any mean." any means not going as far as opening our borders, right?
biggest_pro_going says2015-09-08T19:33:14.3780794Z
What are you talking about Iraq never had nuclear bombs
58539672 says2015-09-08T20:22:15.6833338Z
@biggest_pro_going Iraq never had Nukes, but they did have WMD's once upon a time.
TBR says2015-09-08T20:24:22.6213475Z
58539672 - And they had them while we were supporting Iraq fighting Iran. We are a disaster there.
TBR says2015-09-08T20:25:31.3553881Z
Were like the older brother that "helps you" start using heroin.
stargate says2015-09-08T21:32:18.9657549Z
Well.......
Varrack says2016-01-15T05:17:38.1532347Z
'Murica!

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.